The Impeachment Process Has Officially Begun (15 Viewers)

Thread Attachment browser

Users who are viewing this thread

    Total: 16 (members: 0, guests: 16)
    Andrus

    Andrus

    Admin
    Staff member
    Joined
    Oct 6, 2018
    Messages
    2,268
    Reaction score
    944
    Age
    65
    Location
    Sunset, Louisiana
    Offline
    By Laura Bassett

    After months of internal arguing among Democrats over whether to impeach President Donald Trump, the dam is finally breaking in favor of trying to remove him from office. The Washington Post reported that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi would announce a formal impeachment inquiry on Tuesday, following a bombshell report that Trump illegally asked Ukraine’s government to investigate former Vice President Joe Biden, one of his political opponents. (He essentially admitted to having done so over the weekend.)

    “Now that we have the facts, we’re ready,” Pelosi said Tuesday morning at a forum hosted by The Atlantic. At 5 p.m. the same day, she was back with more. "The actions taken to date by the president have seriously violated the constitution, especially when the president says Article Two says I can do whatever I want," referring to the segment of the Constitution that defines the power of the executive branch of the government. Pelosi's message was that checks and balances of those branches are just as central to the Constitution. And one more thing: "Today, I am announcing the House of Representatives is moving forward with an official impeachment inquiry," she said at a conference broadcast on Twitter by the Huffington Post. ...

    Read the Full Story - InStyle
     
    I am home with a cold today. I was working on my couch with the hearing on the TV (all the major networks have it on air). I agree, Taylor is very clear on what he knows, what he thinks, what he assumes, and when he knew/assumed what.

    Before all that, the Republicans were still trying to try to out the Whistle Blower, by asking if they can subpoena whomever and wanted to do it right then and there (when the most people will watch, the beginning.. my assumption). The chair was correct to allow the discussion, and to table it until after the hearing. Can't let this become more of a circus than needed.

    I thought Schiff and the Democrats lawyer were pretty dry and clear. Some leading. I can see where the Lawyer was going with a few questions, but these two guys are straight shooters who are seemingly very honest about what they know and what they assume or put together after the fact.

    Nunes lawyer is going now. He can't spit a sentence out though. But he's working hard to create some doubt.
     
    With the exception of Schiff interupting, the GOP counsel hasn't gotten much. His questions seem to make Trumps staff look incompetent with how they handled the all.
     
    The Giuliani situation is quite different. To the American diplomats who interacted with Ukraine, it was quite clear that the president’s lawyer was in charge of U.S. policy toward that Eastern European nation. Gordon Sondland, the Republican donor whom the president tapped as the U.S. ambassador to the European Union, testified that, in an Oval Office meeting, Trump directed him to ask Giuliani about Ukraine matters. “He just kept saying, ‘Talk to Rudy, talk to Rudy,’” Sondland said.

    Congress did not legislate a handoff of foreign-diplomacy power to the president’s personal lawyer. He is not working pursuant to a government contract containing legal remedies for the United States if he breaches the terms of his employment. He did not take an oath of office to uphold and defend the Constitution—unlike members of Congress, who will have to weigh that oath heavily as the evidence bearing on impeachment mounts in the coming weeks. He is not bound by federal conflict-of-interest, transparency, or ethics laws—including the Freedom of Information Act—passed by prior Congresses to ensure that people entrusted with the American populace’s authority to self-govern do their jobs with integrity to the Constitution, the rule of law, and the norms that undergird our system of justice.

    As Trump’s personal lawyer, Giuliani’s ethical obligation is solely to his client, Donald J. Trump—the individual, not his office. The Ukraine narrative is plain in this regard. Trump’s interests in tarnishing Biden in furtherance of his own reelection bid were at odds with official U.S. policy toward Ukraine. For decades, the United States has supported the democratization of Ukraine against Russian aggression on the rationale that Ukraine is physically situated as a bulwark for a slew of Western European democracies. Unless we are to believe that Giuliani was acting with zero Trumpian collaboration—a logical impossibility that some of Trump’s most stalwart defenders are nevertheless testing out as an alibi for the president—it appears that Giuliani went rogue on Ukrainian foreign policy at Trump’s personal behest.

    Past presidents, to be sure, have at times directed private citizens to conduct back-channel diplomacy with foreign governments. During World War II, Franklin D. Roosevelt used Harry Hopkins, a trusted confidant without an official title, as his liaison to other Allied leaders. As William Taylor, a top diplomat in Ukraine, recently testified, “It’s not unusual to ask people outside the government to play a role” in foreign policy, “so long as it’s consistent with and supports the main thrust of U.S. foreign policy.” But Giuliani’s ministrations were at cross-purposes with stated American policy.
    Click to expand...

    www.theatlantic.com

    Conservatives Should Want to Impeach Trump

    Outsourcing U.S. diplomacy to Rudy Giuliani was a constitutional violation—one whose gravity Republicans might see if they weren’t so busy making excuses for the president.
    www.theatlantic.com www.theatlantic.com
     
    Well, the GOP didn't really score any points there, IMO. Especially when you consider the length and depth of the answers Taylor and Kent have for all of the Democrats' questions.
     
    Oh, admin edit [Mod Edit-Gym]. Trump obviously realized he was already caught and that's why he released the aid.
     
    Last edited by a moderator:
    Jordan is going all in here, and Taylor had a big grin. Wondering what his answer is.. Here we go..
     
    wardorican said:
    Jordan is going all in here, and Taylor had a big grin. Wondering what his answer is.. Here we go..
    Click to expand...
    Kind of a let down, because Jordan just machine gunned his question for most of the 7 minutes. Taylor couldn't even reply to most of it.
     
    insidejob said:
    Oh, Gym. Trump obviously realized he was already caught and that's why he released the aid.
    Click to expand...

    And because the State Dept. lawyers had concluded that because the money came from annual appropriations, it had to be released by September 30 - and holding it up was potentially illegal as a matter of federal fiscal law.
     
    And the GOP is so stupid to bring Jordan in for their heavy hitter. Rep Ratcliffe is a so much more reasonable sounding and able to work the narrative better. Why not use your better people in the games that matter? It's like the two sides of this coin want to out moron each other somehow.
     
    Ayo said:
    Nunes and Jordan have embarrassed themselves and do nothing but rob the contrary side of legitimacy. It feels like their participation is merely to please Trump.
    Click to expand...
    It’s almost all designed to be raw material for Fox and the spin doctors to edit and contort into a counter-narrative that can be amplified by Limbaugh/Hannity/The_Donald etc.

    By 10pm tonight we will likely have an entire counter-narrative about how Nunes and Jordan exposed Taylor’s testimony and Schiff was foaming at the mouth trying to undo the 2016 election.
     
    Kent had a great line there about the corrupt. I need to get that full quote, because I'll mess it up if I try to go off recollection.
     
    Differences in coverage:

    1573672766193.png


    1573672795488.png
     
    My favorite new spin is that somehow withholding aid and defense weapons is ok because Obama never gave them javelins.
     

    Create an account or login to comment

    You must be a member in order to leave a comment

    Create account

    Create an account on our community. It's easy!

    Register

    Log in

    Already have an account? Log in here.

    Share this page

    General News Feed

    Fact Checkers News Feed

    Back
    Top Bottom